I'd like to hear what others think about laws that impose harsher penalties when the victims are determined to represent discriminated-against groups. Without having done any research, I have not been able to see the sense of these laws. I assume that they would apply at sentencing, in effect forcing the judge's hand as far as the punishment is concerned. The penalties that judges impose may be inconsistent from state to state and even from courtroom to courtroom, but this kind of legislation still is unnecessary and not likely to reduce crimes that might have been motivated at least partly by the victim's social status. The creation of a category of crime called 'hate crime' is not a rational act, which is probably what I hold most against it.

Dwill,

Even though I am a social liberal I tend to agree with you.

I worry about bestowing on certain "classifications" of people greater or lesser protection under the law. The law is suppose to be blind to those distinctions.

I also have issues with the courts determining what was in someones mind, if unspoken, and asessing a penalty based on what that person may or maynot have been thinking when committing a crime.

And where does special protection stop, what are the distinctions?
If someone beats up an obese person because they hate fat people, should that perpetrator be treated differently than if he had arbitrarily beat up a person who wasn't obese? Or a person who he was robbing?

What if a serial killer hates women and kills them exclusively? Should he be penalized more strongly than if he had killed the same number of men?

If some one were to shoot me for being an atheist, should that person be penalized more (or less) for that crime than if he shot me in the course of a hold up?

Those who favor hate crimes legislation say that crimes against certain people (by race, or sexual preference, etc) have a particularly negative impact on that community as a whole. I say that as long as the perpetrator is not given a free pass for the illegal action they committ (regardless of reason) and are prosecuted to the full extent of the law covering that crime, then justicew is served to the community and the individual already.

Bart

DWill wrote:I'd like to hear what others think about laws that impose harsher penalties when the victims are determined to represent discriminated-against groups. Without having done any research, I have not been able to see the sense of these laws. I assume that they would apply at sentencing, in effect forcing the judge's hand as far as the punishment is concerned. The penalties that judges impose may be inconsistent from state to state and even from courtroom to courtroom, but this kind of legislation still is unnecessary and not likely to reduce crimes that might have been motivated at least partly by the victim's social status. The creation of a category of crime called 'hate crime' is not a rational act, which is probably what I hold most against it.

I'll first say that I am entirely in the corner of hate-crime legislation.

The basis for my appreciation is that those who act out hate-motivated desires commit crimes against not only the specific victim but against all those who share in the victim's blame - regardless of which specific characteristic, trait, etc. it assumes. So if, say, a homosexual is assaulted for being a homosexual then in addition to the crime commited against this individual there is also the intimidation directed against all homosexuals to be recognized, and finally, addressed. The victim was not attacked for any particular thing he did, or said, but for what he is - and every homosexual is, in this respect, exactly the same. These laws recognize that in addition to the attack the perpetrator(s) engaged in a form of terrorist activity designed to intimidate, silence, and in various ways oppress an already marginalized group. It is for this reason, primarily, that I find it to be a rational act to tack on additional punishments to those who can't limit themselves, at a minimum, to attacking people who have actually harmed or threatened them in some tangible way.

Kevin wrote:I'll first say that I am entirely in the corner of hate-crime legislation.

The basis for my appreciation is that those who act out hate-motivated desires commit crimes against not only the specific victim but against all those who share in the victim's blame - regardless of which specific characteristic, trait, etc. it assumes. So if, say, a homosexual is assaulted for being a homosexual then in addition to the crime committed against this individual there is also the intimidation directed against all homosexuals to be recognized, and finally, addressed. The victim was not attacked for any particular thing he did, or said, but for what he is - and every homosexual is, in this respect, exactly the same. These laws recognize that in addition to the attack the perpetrator(s) engaged in a form of terrorist activity designed to intimidate, silence, and in various ways oppress an already marginalized group. It is for this reason, primarily, that I find it to be a rational act to tack on additional punishments to those who can't limit themselves, at a minimum, to attacking people who have actually harmed or threatened them in some tangible way.
Kevin, this is well said and had me leaning a bit in the other direction. I think it's essential for the community to express its censure of any crime by meting out punishment. I just still fail to see a basic difference between killing someone because he was gay (as in the Matthew Shepherd case) and killing someone to get 50 bucks off him. Both are murder, the most extreme violation of civil rights. We need a better society, in which people do not do these things, but highlighting certain crimes with extra punishments doesn't seem to me to be the way to get it.

I would even worry a bit about an effect on juries. With the attached stigma of 'hate crime' to the alleged crime juries are deliberating on, could there be a subtle influence on jurors to be less careful in weighing the evidence against a defendent? If it's even a remote possibility, it might be reason enough not to have this hate crime designation.

I agree with all of the reasons Bart gave, above, against having hate laws.

Yes, I agree that the message behind the crime should not be punished. It is just horrifying to hurt or kill someone over greed as it is to hurt someone and kill someone over hatred. When a person get a heavier penalty, that person is being punished for thought crime. When you punish hate crime, the government is making a law against the first admendment. Also it is very contradicting if a person who commited a violent crime from greed or lust get the less sentence than the person who commited a hate crime for the same evil deed. The purpose of jail is to punish the criminal's act, not what the criminal believes in.

DWill wrote:Kevin, this is well said and had me leaning a bit in the other direction.

Thank you.

I think it's essential for the community to express its censure of any crime by meting out punishment. I just still fail to see a basic difference between killing someone because he was gay (as in the Matthew Shepherd case) and killing someone to get 50 bucks off him. Both are murder, the most extreme violation of civil rights. We need a better society, in which people do not do these things, but highlighting certain crimes with extra punishments doesn't seem to me to be the way to get it.

The primary difference is that gays are, historically, a disciminated-against group while people with 50 bucks are not. But to take your example less literally I'll say that if it got to the point where people with money were targeted in significant numbers for the reason that they have money - a proletariat revolution in effect - then those crimes too should be covered by hate-crime legislation. The most common cause for someone being robbed of money, today, however, is that the assailant wants the money - not that he hates his victim for having money. This is not the case with the (stereo)typical hate crime perp - it is not now a case of envy, warped admiration, or critical self-interest that prompts the action - it is hatred of, let's say, a stranger for having a particular skin color, or for kissing someone of the same gender, or what have you... it forms an additional risk to the universal ones engendered by greed, lust, desperation, etc. that everyone faces.

The focus around hate-crimes should not be on the victim. Nor should it be on the act. It is not that murdering one person is worse than murdering another person, per se, but that the intended effect of the oppression of a group of people is found to be a more offensive act than is the assault motivated by greed for money, a desire for dominance over those with whom you have a personal feud, or those brought about through an impulsive nature (to name just a few). It is the enactment of an ethical principle that argues offenses against a group are not to be waved away by the consideration of the offense against an individual.

The argument over hate-crime legislation being a self-defeating exercise is a separate issue from that of whether or not there is a basic difference between crimes committed as a result of hate and those of, say, financial greed. Maybe this particular form of legislation is futile... I'm willing to give it a very wide benefit of the doubt. I'm convinced there are worse laws. That's not much of an argument, granted... but I did at least mention it only after presenting a few others

Patrick Kilgallon wrote:Yes, I agree that the message behind the crime should not be punished. It is just horrifying to hurt or kill someone over greed as it is to hurt someone and kill someone over hatred. When a person get a heavier penalty, that person is being punished for thought crime.

Will you explain why you find it as horrifying for someone to be murdered over greed as you do for someone to be murdered, say, for being a homosexual? I'm not attacking your position, really, but I don't find the two situations to be equally offensive.

When you punish hate crime, the government is making a law against the first admendment.

I don't agree. First, the government has enacted a wide variety of laws that limit the 1st amendment. The merits of these laws can be argued of course, but it's not the case that hate-crime legislation would be a first affront to unfettered 1st amendment rights. Second, it's not a matter of the 1st. Amendment. It is not speech that is being attacked here (though I do favor attacking that as well) but actions. 3rd, I believe that when the government doesn't punish hate crimes it is limiting the 1st amendment rights of its citizens. I think we can all agree that free speech should apply to minorities of all stripes as much as it does to the majority. I will argue that when the majority takes it upon itself to conduct, let's say, message lynchings, the most common result is that freedom of expression will be lessened rather than hightened.

The purpose of jail is to punish the criminal's act, not what the criminal believes in.

I disagree. I consider the proper primary purpose of a prison on the personal level to be that of rehabilitation; on the societal of prevention. To achieve these results, at a minimum, you have to know what a person is thinking. But this is quite another matter from hate-crime legislation.

Kevin asks:

Will you explain why you find it as horrifying for someone to be murdered over greed as you do for someone to be murdered, say, for being a homosexual? I'm not attacking your position, really, but I don't find the two situations to be equally offensive.

If I may, I'll give my opinion. The answer to your question is:

- BECAUSE THEY ARE BOTH EQUALLY DEAD.
- because they both left behind family and friends who have been traumatized for ever, and who will be deprived of their company, love, and financial support... forever.
- because they were both deprived of a full life.
- because they are both entitled to equal protection under the law.

I'm quite sure if the dead could speak, the guy murdered by a robber will insist he has been just as "offended" as was the homosexual victim of a hate crime. I'd agree with him. So would his friends and family.

BTW, Kevin what's your position on morbidly obese people being protected by hate crime legislation?
How about "little people"?
The physically challenged?
Old people?
Atheists?
Clergy?
Abortion providers?
Red haired people?

Should a perpetrator who holds up the jewelry store of an asian and calls him a racial epithet, be penalize more than the robber who holds up the jewelry store of a black person who is not racially insulted?

Where does it stop, and who is the aribitor of who should and should not be a special class of victim?

Bart wrote:If I may, I'll give my opinion. The answer to your question is:

- BECAUSE THEY ARE BOTH EQUALLY DEAD.
- because they both left behind family and friends who have been traumatized for ever, and who will be deprived of their company, love, and financial support... forever.
- because they were both deprived of a full life.

All of these reasons, as well as the ones I snipped, are, potentially at least, objectively true statements of fact. I won't argue against that being the case. It's not to say however that there is no difference between the two murders. The primary difference takes the form of contending that a hate crime is an act against a group while the murder of a person for his wallet is an act carried out against that individual alone.

BTW, Kevin what's your position on morbidly obese people being protected by hate crime legislation?
How about "little people"?
The physically challenged?
Old people?
Red haired people?
Where does it stop, and who is the aribitor of who should and should not be a special class of victim?

Society. Government. Elections. Protests. Activism. The democratic process... the judge and jury who will preside over the case. I don't have any particular position on these specific groups you mention. If any of them are subject to attacks on roughly the level of homosexuals and minorities I see no reason why they shouldn't be included in hate crime legislation.

contending that a hate crime is an act against a group while the murder of a person for his wallet is an act carried out against that individual alone.

Kevin,
I'll posit then that all people who have more money than potential theives are a protected group subject to hate crime protection. Clearly any criminal who would hold up a person with available cash must hate that person's affluence. I guess the burden of proof would be whether or not this person has a pattern of holding up only people with money.

As a person with money, anyone with money who is robbed is an act against my group. I demand equal consideration.

If any of them are subject to attacks on roughly the level of homosexuals and minorities I see no reason why they shouldn't be included in hate crime legislation.

People with money are victimized for their monetary status/ classification far more often than homosexuals for their homosexual status/classification.

So you would concur that people who carry money and are robbed by people with less money are a victim of a hate crime owing to their special social status/ classification?

Why not just add hate crime penalties for EVERY criminal act? Then we can avoid this confusion, eliminate mindreading by the courts, protect the "community" of all possible groups while simultaneously protecting the individual, and give equal protection under the law to all?

i'm being a little fascitious of course, but only to point out how far this slippery slope can go.